Which would be easier to terraform & humanize, Venus, Or Mars?

Maybe men are from mars, women from venus. Anyhow, which one neighbor be easier for the current infrastruction/paradigm on Earth to colonize, and
why.

Which would be better in the long run, small planet close to the sun or big planet farther from the sun. What would vast open waters be like without a
moon for venus, would terraforming even be possible?

Is the moon not feasible, or just off limits? Or, is putting a man on the moon first as good as it gets, for warmongering, crusading, yet collapsing
in on itself, one-world-government PTB?

UNless you have a giant magnet to allow mars keep an atmosphere i think Venus would be the only planet available to live on. Problem though is Venus
is too close to the sun and water dosent stay as liquid for too long not too mention the high pressures found on that planet. A russian spacecraft
landed on venus and lasted for about a minute before it was crushed. Which brings us back to mars we can live there only in domes..take care of our
own planet and we wouldnt feel the need to find another suitable planet lol

Leaving conspiracy theories aside for the moment, it seems to me that Mars would be the most logical planet to attempt to terraform. Venus is simply
too hot; its atmosphere is sulpheric, and it's land masses are mostly gelatinous blobs of lava and red hot stone.

Mars on the other hand is much more acceptable in terms of climate and structure. It has a thin atmosphere that is not breathable, but by slowly
introducing plant life that are accustomed to similar environs, it would not be unthinkable to convert the atmosphere into something more like the
makeup of Earth's own atmosphere.

Mars is covered by a layer of iron oxide in most places, which does not make for suitable soil. One would have to build a greenhouse of sorts on the
surface which could help to grow plants. This greenhouse would also be the temporary habitat's oxygen source.

I strongly suggest following the work on the Mars One project, which is a privately funded mission to send humans to Mars to start a settlement.

The moon is protected under the The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 from being used to
base military installations or testing facilities of any kind and by any country that signed the treaty, so that rules out military bases.

It would be more than possible to locate a private or NASA-funded colony on the moon using the technology of today. I'd say the biggest issues
surrounding the idea are 1.) lack of interest: there are far more interesting places (in the public mind) to go than the moon. Mars is just so much
more mysterious. I think the infatuation with the moon has long since passed. 2.) Lack of funds: NASA isn't getting the budget they used to and more
and more companies are racing to Mars and beyond that it seems the Moon has been forgotten. There are a few projects currently that are looking to
build a sort of "rest stop" on Mars that would be used as a layover for the trip from Earth to Mars, but these pale in comparison to the big ideas
put forth by the Mars projects.

Regarding venus NOT having a moon (does it?), would oceans/seas be totally stagnant, without the pull of the moon? Would they just be like huge
lakes, with no beaches. Guess we'd have to 'bring sand to the beach', if so!

Mars is the obvious choice, with the caveat that terraforming is something that may or may not remain in the realm of fiction. If it does ever happen,
IMO, it won't be a quick process - nor one done with machines. The logistics are simply unfathomable. But I do think that sending some sort of
specially adapted lichen or bacteria might begin such a process - though I would imagine the actual pay-off would take untold centuries to be
achieved.

It's my understanding, the reason that Venus is simple that the atmosphere is on runaway greenhouse gas steroids, ie, way tooo thick... well like
earths once. But then earth was sped up by a planet collision, that produced more gravity which pulls down the gasses. Whereas Venus was impacted by a
planet that slowed it down, doesn't have a spinning core like earth does (right now, what if our core is slowing or slows down?) and thus Venus'
gases are more gaseous.

I rememeber Kaku or some other nerd talking about thinning out the atmosphere would bring down the temp and poisons in gas form, way down. But yea,
they are still somewhat closer than earth is.. but just by earth alone in distance.

By NOT having a moon, most major Earth species would be driven extinct by madness, fly in circles until they die, or other far worse things. Humans
and other Earth species have evolved to work in tandem with our celestial neighbor. Many species are biologically connected to it in one way or
another. Think about how violent crimes increase on the full moon...

Also, there is no water on Venus so I doubt the lack of a moon would affect any lakes. In terms of bodies of lava, I'm not sure it would have much
effect. Gravity is still a given throughout the universe so you have that.

Not sure of your logic here. It seems to me that in the event of a planet collision, the Earth would loose mass which would lower its gravitational
pull, not increase it. In fact, it's generally accepted that our moon is a product of the collision you speak of.

Venus is a lost cause in terms on habitation simply due to the fact that any ships we send there would be non-functioning not long after landing.
It's just too inhospitable.

So you know, venus is much larger than mars, mars is about 2 and a half of our moon, venus is about earth sized.

So it woukd be large planet close to aun smallnplanet far from sun.

I think the answer would be to do both, and use both to help each other. Here I will explain my meaning.

Venus is not hot just because it is closer to the sun, or even because it has a high co2 concentrration in its atmosphere. It is a burning waste lane
befause it has too much atmosphere. Here on earth at sea level, w elwe are under about 14 psi of pressure, from the atmosphere pushing down on us. On
venus the atmosphereic prssure is hundreds of psi, no human could ever survive that. They woukd be crushed like a grape.

Mars has almost no atmosphere, because its magnetic shield no longer protects it from the slar wind, which has blown it away to the vacuum of
space.

I say we figure out how to fix mars' magnetic shield, or create a artificial one, and transport large amounts of tases from venus to mars, as both
have their atmosphere brought to a more human like tolerance, venus woukd begin to cool, and kars would begin to warm.

After a few thousand years of this, we would start to see improvements on both.

So you know, venus is much larger than mars, mars is about 2 and a half of our moon, venus is about earth sized.

So it woukd be large planet close to aun smallnplanet far from sun.

I think the answer would be to do both, and use both to help each other. Here I will explain my meaning.

Venus is not hot just because it is closer to the sun, or even because it has a high co2 concentrration in its atmosphere. It is a burning waste lane
befause it has too much atmosphere. Here on earth at sea level, w elwe are under about 14 psi of pressure, from the atmosphere pushing down on us. On
venus the atmosphereic prssure is hundreds of psi, no human could ever survive that. They woukd be crushed like a grape.

Mars has almost no atmosphere, because its magnetic shield no longer protects it from the slar wind, which has blown it away to the vacuum of
space.

I say we figure out how to fix mars' magnetic shield, or create a artificial one, and transport large amounts of tases from venus to mars, as both
have their atmosphere brought to a more human like tolerance, venus woukd begin to cool, and kars would begin to warm.

After a few thousand years of this, we would start to see improvements on both.

Just my take.

I think you have a good idea, but the practicality of it is not feasible. Transporting gases from Venus to Mars would be tedious and require too much
risk and expenditure of resources compared to other means.

The Earth's magnetic field is generated by the molten core. Mars' core is believe to be almost completely solidified, which is why its magnetic field
is almost non-existent. Part of this is due to the planet's relatively small size combined with other factors in its past that we are currently
unaware of.

Earth is extremely lucky to have a field as strong as it is, and this is largely due to the theorized impact of a Mars-sized planet early after our
formation which essentially liquified the entire planet and threw up the material to create the Moon. This helped a lot of the metals that comprise
our core to seep into the center of our planet to create the dynamo that generates the strong field we have today, as well as the Moon that gives us a
bit of extra tidal stress.

Mars, as far as we are aware, has had none of this. Combined with its smaller size and further distance from the Sun, it was able to cool much
faster. Which, without a strong magnetic field, means the planet doesn't have resistance to the solar wind to protect its atmosphere from being
slowly stripped away.

Currently the best prospects for truly terraforming Mars is to nudge comets as they come into the inner solar system so that they will impact Mars.
Since comets typically have a lot of water and other ices (CO2, etc), this could give the planet the necessary greenhouse boost to vastly improve
habitable conditions. The problem being that it will slowly lose this again to the solar wind unless we discover some way to reignite the core (which
is well beyond our means at present) It will also take time. Time to wait for suitable comets, time to redirect them, and probably even time to wait
for the aftereffects of the impact to dissipate.

A fairly large comet is believed to be making what might be it's first pass ever into the inner solar system in the near future and will either hit
Mars or come exceedingly close according to current orbital projections. There are some saying we should go ahead and use this opportunity to not
only start the process, but test our ability to redirect potentially hazardous objects.

I've always thought that, assuming both are currently devoid of life, causing Ceres to collide with Mars could be by far the most-effective method.
The Dawn spacecraft is due to arrive in orbit of Ceres in 2015, so we should be able to learn a lot more about the composition, etc of the dwarf
planet. It has been speculated that there could be a good bit of water in subsurface oceans under a thick icy mantle.

Terraforming of Venus would be a lot more involved. The current best strategies include using what they term floating cities or an insane # of
reflective balloons in the upper atmosphere to shade the lower atmosphere from the sun so that it would have a chance to cool off. Then they would
need to find a way to process out the carbon dioxide either through biological or other means. They've also explored the possibility of the effect of
introducing a lot of hydrogen to the atmosphere as it would react with the CO2 to create graphite and water.

As Mars does not have a magnetosphere, therefore no protection from the sun, it would have to be Venus, but as it is so close to the Sun terraforming
is pointless, the heat would be too great, screwed on either planet.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.